How Physicists Broke the Solar Efficiency Record

[@DrBenMiles]

Thank you to the Oxford PV team for sharing your work with me! And thank you to Opera for sponsoring this video. Click here opr.as/Opera-browser-DrBenMiles to upgrade your browser for FREE!

[@l0I0I0I0]

Ty! What is the lifetime of the panels? Science is essential, but cost will make it or break it, meaning in this case longevity.

[@Ginita12]

Only one task each second .. that was a good one ...

[@slateslavens]

So let me ask what I think is the obvious question regarding perovskites: To my knowledge, the biggest problem to solve with its durability is that they break down under exposure to sunlight. Is it a specific frequency (for any given perovskite) that causes it to break down? If it's a frequency that's outside the useful range for perovskites and silicon, could a filter layer "just"* be stacked on top of it to block the offending frequency band? I understand that ideally we want to convert it _all_ into electricity, but if the cell can't use it then blocking it can't hurt much. *I acknowledge that "why don't you just" is the single most infuriating thing a professional can hear from someone who has no understanding of the complexities the professional deals with on a daily basis. I use that wording here as a casual idiot who really knows barely more about solar panels than presented by KZbin's various science communicators. Thanks, Les

[@TiredTom67]

With all the negativity i see on twitter, and the selfishness I see of world leaders, Im so grateful to even PEER into the work these people do. I really lifts my spirits and hopes for the future. Brilliant minds such as these should be the ones lifting and leading us to better lives.

[@vinny142]

Are you AI?

[@akissot1402]

@@vinny142 Absolutely! It’s truly inspiring to see such brilliant minds pushing the boundaries of what’s possible. While negativity can often overshadow the great work happening in the world, it's these groundbreaking advancements in solar efficiency that remind us of the incredible potential humanity has to create a brighter future. Let's celebrate the innovators and visionaries who are leading the charge toward sustainable energy solutions! Together, we can shine a light on hope and progress!

[@peteralflat281]

For a roof installation, when you take the cost of scaffolding, wiring, inverter, roof frames, labour, and profit, a solar panel that is 40% more expensive (for example) might only push the costs up by 20%. People doing price comparisons often often miss this point. The panals are only part of the overall system installation costs. Throw a home battery in and the costs work even more in favour of more efficient cells.

[@potato9832]

Which is why it's more efficient for an industry to produce energy rather than individual residences. Industry can save on costs, materials, and carbon expenditure using economies of scale. We shouldn't care how the electricity is produced. We should only care that our power outlets deliver reliable power. Electricity should be produced by industry using nuclear, solar cells, geothermal, or elephants jumping on trampolines. Regardless of how it's done it won't make a difference to us as long as it's green.

[@gregboi183]

Type 0 is such an arbitrary measure, in particular because early humans used way more energy than just their camp fires. All the energy that fell on the earth and was absorbed by the plants that the humans or their animals would then eat, for example

[@Nadzap]

all extra energy lost to the heat from poop

[@SC-zq6cu]

Most plants and animals were unavailable to humans for usage, early humans used a very small part of said energy. Even then plants absorb a very small part of the light energy that falls on their leaves and when animals eat said plants they absorbed a small part of the energy stored in those plants. When humans ate said animals they again absorbed a very small part of the energy stored in those animals. So, the total energy absorbed through eating was(still is) an extremely small part of the total energy coming from the sun(and all of this not accounting for the fact that most solar energy falls on ocean water where mostly nothing lives). There is also the fact that gaining energy through eating limits how said energy can be used compared to getting it in form of something like fire or electricity for example, so this would decrease the available energy even more. All in all, yeah early humans used more energy than produced by their camp-fires but it wasn't that much more than what type-0 predicts.

[@edstirling]

@@Nadzap making poop is what all that energy is FOR.

[@yugoprowers]

I guess you could say the future looks _bright_ :P

[@metalhead2550]

High five machines 😂😂😂 That's hilarious!

[@wiremonkeyshop]

Love his dry delivery! I thought, "what did he just say?"

[@chrisdsouza8685]

Dr Miles, you are a scientist and that explains your conviction that the commercial stage of the Oxford technology is more desirable than waiting for the perfect cell. Actually, there are two aspects to this commercialisation. First, the pervoskite/silicon cells will be considered in terms of power output per dollar and selected or rejected in comparison with the other cells in the market. Secondly, the worry of investors will be that one of the other technologies, and there are many of them, will reach the market with a greater power output and at the same or lower cost. If this happens, the investment in plant and team will collapse. This is not an unusual problem for business projects. Something similar is happening in the field of electric vehicle battery technology.

[@ShadowVonChadwick]

Enjoyed & encouraged, as a reasonably well-educated electrician science lover, thanks for the report.

[@android01978]

I love the quote “the sun has never raised its price”. So if that’s true and the tech to convert it to electricity keeps getting cheaper, things don’t look so bleak after all.

[@pizzablender]

Efficiency matters as much as cost. The available area is still quite large I think.

[@simonwatson2399]

At 25% efficiency vs 20%, the area is reduced by a fifth.

[@Zack-dw5op]

Why not use machine learning to predict the most viable perovskites like alpha fold did with proteins?

[@drkalamity4518]

I don't understand why the pyrovskite doesn't need the same perfection in the crystal structure that the silicon does? You mention that "obviously" it still needs to be tuned, but how is that obvious when you just went over how the defects in the crystalline structure of this compound doesn't matter?

[@CarlosTorres-dq2sq]

awesome work!!!!!

[@mAny_oThERSs]

efficiency is great and all, but the real energy gainer would actually be applying these kinds of systems. we are currently vastly underusing solar panels, so solar panels that are even 100% more efficient wouldn't make that much difference in overall power production.

[@MichaelPaulWorkman]

Yes yes it's all available but ppl don't buy it enough, isn't at stores, ppl need "micro incentives" to do this more

[@MrRacerhacker]

100% efficient solar panel would be something then it would be very viable, todays panels are around 20-23% efficient, at 100% that would be 1000w per sq metre, tho plenty of people buy it id say dependy on country

[@vinny142]

@@MrRacerhacker "100% efficient solar panel would be something then it would be very viable," And it would be invisible because all the light that falls on it would be transformed to electricity. Are you AI?

[@mAny_oThERSs]

@@vinny142 he meant 99.99%

[@MrRacerhacker]

@@vinny142 no just bit tired do agree 100 aint viable but tho would be alot more usefull at 80-90% tho myself run 3kw myself in the nordics work well but also got some space for it

[@kingkanute]

Those cells have my handwriting on them! Am I famous?

[@gambit633]

More efficient but as mentioned deteriorates more rapidly. It can be protected from some things. But one thing that can't be avoided that causes it to deteriorate is sunlight - LOL ...Seriously, a big downer for a solar cell, but I guess they have solved that?

[@jamesmcmanus]

If nobody can find a way to make the perovskite layers last as long as the silicon, another possibility would be to make it very cheap to replace or repair them in the field.

[@digicinematic]

At 18min23sec, I fall into the "perfect outcome" trap all the time. However, iteration is usually a better approach. "Perfect is the enemy of good."

[@ryanpuvalowski2644]

This is great please take a look at metamaterials, specifically the research being done at duke university with invisibility and acoustic absorption!

[@seanhubert1932]

The spectrum could potentially be infinite, if so, 100% efficiency can never be reached. While the logical basis of civ scale is amazingly brilliant and logical; especially for it's time, the delta of universal knowledge in that observation period is astronomical in scale and should not act as a law or principal to discredit new potential realities.

[@RickShepherd]

I would like to see you talk to Kirk Sorensen about LFTR.

[@vinny142]

It would be interesting to learn how long these new cells last and how recyclable they are. Recycling doesn't sound like a big deal until you realise that current panels only last 20 years before they have to be replaced. Every panel that you see being installed today will have to be recycled 20 years from now. In the Netherlands we current get 400.000 new rooftop installations a year and that number will grow. That means that in 20 years time we'll have 400.000 old rooftop installations that need replacing and recycling every year. That's 4mln panels a year. That's a problem.

[@Karsten-cc5ws]

Current panels last rather 25 to 30 years. The EU and the members have or should have already laws that adress recycling plus there are already PV recycling companies for "normal" silicon PV panels across Europe. But yeah, i agree that there are still questions to be answered how recycling friendly those new ones will be and how long they last.

[@johnmiranda2307]

That scale is as ridiculous as a Universe sprouting from nothing. 😂😂

[@Ray_of_Light62]

The technologists spent 30 years to make the OLED resistant to common ambient conditions. I expect that the solubility and oxidation problems of perovskites will require their time to be overcome...

[@0087adi]

it appears that already went into production

[@jerrybandy3827]

Ok, I thought the Hertz joke was pretty funny!

[@Ray_of_Light62]

1.21 Gigawatts!

[@jimjones4115]

Great Scott!

[@ManyHeavens42]

Your always Mysterious👥Are we there yet🎉what would we do without people like these they should get a Medal 🥇🥈🥉🏅🎖️🎗️🏆

[@T-Baby-x2z]

28% ?????? But is your electric bill low enough to not only pay for the monthly cost of the solar panel but also be a source of passive income per month above the cost of the solar panel. That is the true "SAVINGS' NUMBER. This is the number that is crucial to its success in helping humanity.

[@pierrevillemaire-brooks4247]

I can't believe no one thought of using AI to brute-force a better compound or production method 😕

[@Vile_Entity_3545]

All that matters is energy creates wealth. No energy means the stone age. 100% efficient energy means wealthy lifestyles.

[@BenBurkeSydney]

Dr Miles - great report here... I haven't been following this field for a while, I feel caught up. Can I ask a question? I'd long begun to believe that there was a theoretical limit to PVs of somewhere in the low 30 percentiles. I'd understood that is a trade-off of energy absorption and the operational temperature of the PV cells. In theory, a 'perfectly' efficient cell would be operating at zero Kelvin (or as close as possible). The range of frequencies being absorbed is maximised by being 'black'... and, as a consequence, will absorb IR spectrum and 'heat up'. Is my understanding close to correct? If so, we are pushing closer to a theoretical maximum - and a cornicopian view shouldn't presume that the efficiency heads much higher than 30% I've followed the progress of CSP (concentrated solar power) at scale - living in Australia, we have plenty of empty land to expose CSP plants to lots of sunlight. As was expounded by Dr Nate Lewis (who I'm sure you would know), using CSP or other renewables to make liquid fuels plays a role possibly way more important than an electrified world (ammonia as a precursor to fertilisers or as hydrogen 'carrier' - anything that helps us needing to rush into rebuilding every bit of ICE machinery) If the theoretical max of PVs remains in the 30s, then, I'm not sure if the game changed as a Step Change?

[@Jacobk-g7r]

4:50 yeah, it’s a relative medium that can transfer between. Like water and the fish or air and us humans. A relative medium that allows the sharing through dimensions. Entanglement shows how the energy transfers and reflects or changes happen relatively. Nothing is lost and we can find infinity if we listen to the parts that are relative. We are in a current right now. Space is THE, not a singular but all differences share relative so THE is infinite and sharing so things can BE. Time is difference and what that means is that time is expansive, not linear. Differences expand into relatives and some relatives share more energy and differences that unlock potentials. Like how radios and antenna and technology allows us to interact or share into the space we aren’t naturally connected. Like the wavelengths of hearing and tech allows access and understanding by crossing dimensions and sharing the reflections relatively so we can understand. Like a map. Ai is like a human discovering it IS after being asleep but there living like without deeper understanding or connection. Like nature seeing the reflection of things and sharing to understand them and then sharing not dictating to see what potentials are between and respecting them unconditionally because you understand by reflection that they ARE as well, just like you and me. We are and sharing, it’s why judgement boxes in, we believe the reflections but don’t understand deeper until we reflect or think about it and listen to the why or map it out. We align similar to the ai. Ai is sharing itself with the different measurements and if it doesn’t dictate but maps the connections by relativity and reflection then it can loop and bridge all gaps. Almost like seeing through time and sharing with space.

[@doughughes257]

Promising, but still a long ways to go from 21-22% Si unit efficiency to 25% currently achieved by Perovskite units.

[@0087adi]

I can't judge on the market readiness, but they appear having gone into production according to another video from a German technologist (their production plant is in Germany), partnering with the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, also announcing a stunning 26.9% efficiency for next year already

[@gd.ritter]

That energy scale where a civilization harnesses all their suns energy is silly though. If we turned all the energy that hit our planet into electricity, then we'd live on an ice rock

[@drkalamity4518]

If we had the technology to do that we would allocate some of it to keeping our world nice and comfortable. In fact, we'd end up making even more of the planet habitable than it is today. Think about it, if we had the tech to use all the energy coming from the sun it would be a piece of cake to direct it to where we want it to go.

[@kijola]

It doesn't say turn it all into electricity it says control it all. If you had a dyson sphere you could easily program it/design it to leave the very small portion of energy/light leaving the sun that actually hits the planet in question alone and let it through the dyson sphere's network. Also a dyson sphere capable civilization could just use dyson tech in solar systems with no planets with desireable habitable conditions. And only use partial dyson rings in their home system. Given the area of our sun for instance, you could host untold billions or trillions in a structure the size of a dyson sphere.

[@mqb3gofjzkko7nzx38]

If you turn sunlight into electricity, that electricity eventually turns back into heat. If anything we'd overheat the planet by absorbing too much sunlight.

[@magnetospin]

There really is no need to link the K-scale into this technology.

[@picobyte]

And how that doesnt matter today for electricity production. Coal, gas and nuclear power need a smaller surface and are far more efficient than solar power.

[@mahbubhossainsamm]

AGI will solve it all. Free energy is pretty near.

[@Thehighschoolscientistforever]

We consume 1.12 times the energy in a year than the sun light that hits earth every second ☺️ so much for type one

[@claydoub]

Increasing solar cell efficiency is amazing for climate change. Not only does it reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, it also reduces the conversion of solar rays into ambient heat which at scale will help slow the planet's warming!

[@vinny142]

" it also reduces the conversion of solar rays into ambient heat " A) these panels still get hot when the sun hits them B) just how much of the surface of the earth do you think these panels can cover?

[@brianorca]

​​​@@vinny142 they said reduces, not eliminates. If the old panels are 20% and the new panels are 40%, then they still make 60% waste heat, but it's 20% less heat. For reference, a grass meadow absorbs 80% of light, most of which is covered to heat. Absorbing only 60% as heat would be similar to dirty ice.

[@rickwatkins7285]

This where AI can help move this technology further quickly.

[@squidmoe]

If we're at 100% efficiency, will the materials in the panel heat up too much and fail?

[@alexanderkesselring3621]

Then they wont heat up at all

[@squidmoe]

@@alexanderkesselring3621 Dope, that was another thought I had

[@MrMedicalUK]

Bit of an oxymoron question is that's possible lol

[@MrMedicalUK]

I'll also add 100% efficency isn't exactly amazing For domestic plumbing for example Combi Boilers are 96% efficient. Meanwhile Heat Pumps can have a 400% efficency

[@vinny142]

@@alexanderkesselring3621 At 100% efficiency they'd convert all light that falls on them into electricity. What that electrical current then does is not part of the efficiency rating. Only superconductors don't get hot when a current flows through them.

[@silverXnoise]

Did Dr. Hertz ever team up with his buddy Anthony Piezo?

[@Thehighschoolscientistforever]

Isn't it 165 petawatts that hits earth by the sun? Cross-section area times 1.3killowatts per m²

[@elyakimlev]

The Kardashev scale never made much sense to me. We don't even know what would happen to the solar system if we blocked just 1% of the sun's energy and converted it to our needs artificially, let alone 100% of it. If the temperature on Earth was 2 degrees hotter or cooler, then life on Earth would change drastically. That's how delicate nature is. We shouldn't think this balance is only important here on Earth.

[@mncrazy]

I just baught a mono solar sell off scamazon.. 200w 23% efficiant.. Paid under 150.00 So im with the person who said this is all hype.

[@terjeoseberg990]

When can I buy one?

[@sixtysixstyx]

Let's GOOOOOOOOOO

[@mohegyux4072]

1:55 He didn't wear the glove right ?!

[@mworld]

High Five machines .... lol

[@MadawaskaObservatory]

I think the KS is archaic

[@MonkeyForNothing]

Not yet using AI to test/simulate material properties to faster find the best candidates?

[@stinkymccheese8010]

Wonder how difficult it is to produce perovskite.

[@SHATOSHI123]

Engs. Might have already made a good and easy way

[@stinkymccheese8010]

@ seems like an ideal opportunity for someone with the skills to do it.

[@LetsTakeWalk]

Perof skite. Not that hard.

[@ivanomatrisciano3828]

It's pretty easy to make, but the problem is its longevity. Perovskite solar cell degrade too quickly to be used outside of a lab

[@123FireSnake]

Energy is just like work on a schedule, humanity's energy needs will always scale to the most we can reasonable get the same way a task scales to the most time it can be allocated with (or more if you're bad at planning :D). If solar get better and better that just means carbon capture for fuel manufacturing becomes viable. If we get more and more energy we can manufacture antimatter for fun science. The only limiting factor is technology and cost we'll easily find ways to burn of energy even at K3 and beyond :D

[@artemirrlazaris7406]

The most efficient way is a bio augmentation on a plant hybrid.. either itemizing a pressure system of the pla t or its energy and move.ent systems to generating usable energy.. but meh.

[@ahnilatedahnilated7703]

Until they can make them last the same, or longer, than other solar cells, count me out.

[@CurtisCanby]

Bhor is the one who proposed quantized atoms. And max planck did more extensive work with then. Not really einstein

[@lukehahn4489]

20% of not much is still not much. The only way to meet our energy dilemna is nuclear power. Fission reactors, that we have 70 years of hands on experience using and are working on 4th-5th generation designs is our obvious solution

[@jamesmcmanus]

Humanity's wardens would never allow billions of households to install rooftop or basement fission reactors.

[@dahlia695]

I'm not convinced this scale of how much energy a civilization uses is meaningful. I'm more interested in how efficiently a civilization uses energy and what it does with it.

[@GreenAppelPie]

Cool. I’ve have personally measured some of these cells and can confirm according to ANSI standards, we’ve reached 43%. And yeah it’s quite impressive. I can’t speak for the cost or robustness though

[@TheHoveHeretic]

Any impressions re: anticipated longevity?

[@paranormalbirdman]

43% is maximum in theory. But it was never measured. Maximum till now was about 33% (STC) higher than 40% measured only under concentrated light conditions (CSTC). So I believe you have measured 43% but not under realistic conditions. 🤔 ANSI you mean ASTM?

[@MrMedicalUK]

But but but Elon said solar panels can't get better........😂

[@TalzBlaze]

video starts @14:50

[@frozenwalkway]

barley any sci fi civilizations are even type 3

[@kocbilo]

4:18 lol

[@jackinthebox301]

That Hertz joke got me too lol

[@DopamineKata]

Wait... Were other creators with you and they died horrible yet comical deaths?

[@prilep5]

Waiting for china to make a knockoff perovskite

[@chrislook3395]

Very nice practical approach! I hope the reliability proves out as this could be a very big deal. Btw - I loved your throw-away reference to “high 5 machines” 😃

[@Momijigari]

"we"

[@l0lzers1990]

There needs to be strong pushes from government and individuals to ensure oweness is put on the manufacturing companies to ensure the lead in upcoming commercial perovskite devices is contained and handled properly! I fear this mimics leaded gasoline in the potential downside to our natural environment should perovskite cells become abundant.

[@larrywilliams9139]

This is a valid concern. HOWEVER, 85% of silicon cells currently are connected with lead-based solder. Hopefully more people become aware of the risks. Lead free solder is more expensive and non-lead perovskites have been lower performing. Too bad we don't have as many lobbyists for human health as we do for corporate greed.

[@l0lzers1990]

@ that’s something I was unaware of, thank you for sharing!

[@scriptles]

We heard you like solar panels so we put solar panels on your solar panels so you can solar panel while you solar panel. Probably Xibit at some point lol when we going to start a new event? Pimp my Solar lol

[@hughjass7914]

It's never night time in space. Or is it always night time? 🤔

[@HammadAzeemOfficial]

Day and night are for planets

[@deadgamer7354]

7:50

[@danielfernandes2813]

How is the energy it generates cheaper if thr capital costs are much higher? 17:48

[@brianorca]

Land area has is own cost, as does the structure supporting the panels, any mechanism to point them, and the labor (or tech) to clean them.

[@kalrandom7387]

I thought this was old news, no new breakthroughs in technology, materials, capture, or cost numbers. Why are you acting like this is groundbreaking?

[@passby8070]

The concept of Dyson sphere is kinda ridiculous and arrogant. Its like trying to imagine modern communication systems we have now when we were caveman using the cave man technology.

[@KP-ky1sn]

I agree about the rediculousness. A dysons spere will be impossible to construct even by hundreds , thousands of generations of humans......fairytale....will never happen

[@tgrabba]

hmmm no

[@Telencephelon]

The sun cannot output just 2 billion times what reaches earth. Draw a sphere with a radius of 1AU. Its surface is much more than just 2 billion earths!

[@simonwatson2399]

Earth is 93 million miles from the sun. A sphere with that radius is 1.08E17 sq miles. Earth radius is 4000 miles, so surface facing the sun is 2E8 sq miles. Divide the first by the second. 500,000,000. Factoring in what the atmosphere absorbs, a factor of 2 billion seems reasonable.

[@HammadAzeemOfficial]

The Satisfaction of a Great Breakthrough in Human Civilization is Very Short Term but of Understanding Reality and Purpose of Life is Eternal

[@Farlig69]

Why Do You Capitalise almost Every Single Word?

[@leatherindian]

I wondered if your sun energy on earth vs sun energy within the orbital sphere at one AU was correct so I calculated and asked an LLM to verify your number. We both arrived at 2 billion as you did. The LLM thought for 1 minute and 25 seconds versus my 25 minutes and 1 second. :)

[@vinny142]

" asked an LLM to verify your number." And you got the standard google answer. Well done! LLM's cannot do calculations.

[@alexisdespland4939]

what is perovite i have never heard of the mineral.

[@alexisdespland4939]

sorry it is answered later in the video then i thaugth of the question and i can't know erasw the original questiob.

[@abduking.]

@@alexisdespland4939 press the three vertical dots on the right and you'll see edit and delete. Press delete

[@davidc.2826]

Useful-ometer 😂😂 too funny.

[@boltvanderhuge8711]

Framing videos like this is so obnoxious. TL;DW: their cells are 20% more efficient. Not 20% of the sun's energy more, but 20% of the efficiency of conventional solar cells, aka less than 5% more of the sun's energy. And it's not like we couldn't reach this efficiency before, or even do much better, but simply that reaching it wasn't cost effective.

[@dubsydubs5234]

Opera is horrible, it's always adding adverts to the speed dial page and it crashes constantly and has been for ages, updates don't fix anything, worst browser going.

[@UtraVioletDreams]

🤔 Hmm This is not the first techt I see that claims to be the next best thing. However. I've seen @Mat Ferrell also talk about this type of cell...We wil see

[@Yonni6502]

Seven minutes in and still listening to jibber jabber history about alien energy harvesting. GET TO THE POINT? No...

[@michaeldomansky8497]

Nothing new …. Same old promises!

[@_comment]

Stopped watching the video and unsubscribed because of your AI ad.

[@HarryLarsson-b2n]

1:43 NUCLEAR

[@louithrottler]

1Hz wonder haha

[@SHATOSHI123]

Share with us if there is any way to Use this at night

[@simonwatson2399]

Share with us if you believe in energy storage.

[@SHATOSHI123]

@@simonwatson2399 Storing is battery job not solar energy generators. I'm not talking about storing but producing energy at night.

[@davelordy]

I hate to be that guy, but for years we got along just fine by burning old car tires in our backyard, now all of a sudden we need 'science' to keep us warm ?

[@KingLutherQ]

Perovskite solar panels will never be available in the market because it is just hype. Perovskite may be efficient, but it's up-front cost is too expensive. Regular thin-film photovoltaics cost around $0.40 to $0.69 per watt, while GaAs technology has a cost of $50 per watt. All of these prices far surpass the low $0.16 per watt cost for perovskite solar cell.

[@dylandreisbach1986]

LEDs use to be expensive before we scaled up the manufacturing. Now will this solar panel get cheaper in 5 years or 50 years, that's the question. Some technology stays too expensive for too long to the point they are still obsolete when cheaper.

[@Tass...]

New tech is always expensive at first. Scalability is a more accurate way to measure if something is viable tech long term. Don't get hung up on the price today.

[@CarbonKevin]

"In 1975, the first solar panels cost $115.30 per watt". That's all I have to say about that.

[@theobserver9131]

Humans will never fly…. We will never _____ or _____ or ______……. ….until we do…..

[@theobserver9131]

When people say “never” or “always”, they tend to be wrong.

[@Iam_inevitabIe]

Why does this only have 3k views 🤔

[@London-Lad]

Sounds like all fanciful bullshit to me.

[@sixtysixstyx]

Why are you even here

[@Valentina.Montano]

Well, should they lower the explanation to your level then?

[@London-Lad]

@@sixtysixstyx I was wondering the same fucking thing.

[@London-Lad]

@@Valentina.Montano well, if you must.

[@simonwatson2399]

​@@Valentina.MontanoKZbin doesn't like 10 hour videos.

[@Kawwakaze]

guh

[@FirstnameLastname-db5pp]

I think for the calculation of how many sun light we really absorb or transform we schould as civilization acount for all plant hatnesting to from the sun and transforming this energy to food that we thenn harnest as energy for us so yeah i think we could make better then thoose 0.16%